United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court on non-party Theodore C.
Eastmoore's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 202) and
Defendant's Opposition thereto (Doc. 204).
instant action is a third-party bad faith action brought by
Plaintiff Cory Kapral against Defendant Geico Indemnity
Company, arising out of an automobile accident involving
Plaintiff and Pamela Beitlich. (Doc. 1). Following the
accident, Paul and Pamela Beitlich retained Theodore C.
Eastmoore, Esq., who filed the underlying lawsuit.
December 21, 2016, the instant action was set for trial
before the Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United
States District Judge, commencing on January 23, 2017. (Doc.
201, p. 3). Thereafter, defense counsel issued a trial
subpoena to Mr. Eastmoore, which was served on December 29,
2016, compelling his attendance at the trial on January 23,
2017. (Doc. 202, p. 4). On January 5, 2017, Mr. Eastmoore
filed the instant Motion for Protective Order requesting that
he be released from the trial subpoena because he is
presently set to serve as lead counsel in a two- week medical
malpractice trial beginning on January 23, 2017. (Doc. 202,
Court may enter a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1). That
rule provides, in relevant part:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move
for a protective order in the court where the action is
pending … The court may, for good cause, issue an
order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Courts have stated that under Rule
26(c)(1), a protective order may be issued if the movant
shows “good cause.” McCarthy v. Barnett Bank
of Polk County, 876 F.2d 89, 91 (11th Cir. 1989).
as Defendant concedes, the undersigned finds that serving as
lead counsel in a separate litigation constitutes good cause
to release Mr. Eastmoore from the trial subpoena. (Doc. 204,
p. 4). As this matter is set for trial commencing on January
23, 2017, the same date that Mr. Eastmoore's two week
trial begins, the undersigned sees no need to further delay
entry of the protective order.
after due consideration, it is ORDERED that Theodore C.
Eastmoore's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 202) is
 The undersigned ordered Defendant to
provide an expedited response. ...